Sorry, you need to enable JavaScript to visit this website.

Search

  • STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. M.A.B. (22-12-2215, OCEAN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-3302-22 Appellate Nov. 17, 2025
  • ANUJ S. ACHARYA VS. JOLLY THAKKAR (FM-12-0954-20, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0130-23 Appellate Nov. 17, 2025
  • K.J.S. VS. R.C.H. (FV-14-0198-24, MORRIS COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-2076-23 Appellate Nov. 17, 2025
  • STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. FREDDIE L. GRAHAM (07-03-0298, PASSAIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-2142-23 Appellate Nov. 17, 2025
  • HERMEL VALENCIA VS. CHRISTOPHER CURI, ET AL. (SC-000604-23, PASSAIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3749-23 Appellate Nov. 17, 2025
  • HUDSON RIVER ASSOCIATES, LLC, ET AL. VS. THE PROMENADE AT EDGEWATER CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL. (L-0394-24, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0398-24 Appellate Nov. 17, 2025
  • A-2404-24/A-0338-25 – JESSICA GARCIA VS. UNION CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION, ET AL. (L-1394-21 AND L-2710-21, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (CONDOLIDATED) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-2404-24/A-0338-25 Appellate Nov. 17, 2025
  • MIDATLANTIC IRA LLC, ET AL. VS. TRAVIS ALLY, ET AL. (F-007024-23, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0630-24 Appellate Nov. 17, 2025
  • SHERYL STEPHENSON VS. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES (NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES) A-3779-23 Appellate Nov. 17, 2025
  • STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JESUS DELGADO (10-12-1274, PASSAIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-1597-23 Appellate Nov. 18, 2025
  • STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. IMAM S. SEARS (21-05-0679, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3351-23 Appellate Nov. 18, 2025
  • PRINSIPE L. AMANTE VS. BOARD OF TRUSTEES, ETC. (POLICE AND FIREMEN'S RETIREMENT SYSTEM) A-3669-23 Appellate Nov. 18, 2025
  • GINA MARIE BATTAGLINI VS. ANDREW HARTUNG, ET AL. (DC-002459-24, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3804-23 Appellate Nov. 18, 2025
  • DEWAN N. AREFIN VS. THE DOHERTY GROUP, INC., ET AL. (L-6678-23, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3913-23 Appellate Nov. 18, 2025
  • ADONI PROPERTY GROUP, LLC VS. TOWNSHIP OF MIDDLETOWN, ET AL. (L-1260-23, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0445-24 Appellate Nov. 18, 2025
  • BRIANNE JOHNSON VS. THOMAS COLLINS, ET AL. (C-000058-22, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0894-24 Appellate Nov. 18, 2025
  • C.J.S. VS. A.S. (FV-07-1263-25, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-1094-24 Appellate Jan. 27, 2026 Summary A-1094-24           In this matter, the court addressed whether the trial court erred in finding the parties have children in common, leading the trial court to dismiss plaintiff's complaint pursuant to the Victim's Assistance and Survivor Protection Act (VASPA), N.J.S.A. 2C:14-13 to -21.           Plaintiff and S.S. divorced in 2019 and have since been involved in extensive post-judgment litigation regarding their two minor children.  He subsequently alleged defendant, who at the time was S.S.'s boyfriend and is now her husband, sexually abused the children.  Plaintiff filed an order to show cause concerning the alleged acts of abuse.  In March 2020, the trial court entered an order barring defendant "from any further contact with the children pending further order" of the court.  This order remains in effect to this day.           In 2024, plaintiff filed a VASPA complaint against defendant alleging cyber harassment and obtained a temporary protective order (TPO).  The trial court entered an order to show cause directing plaintiff to show cause why his VASPA complaint and TPO should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.  Following oral argument, the trial court determined it would only have jurisdiction over the VASPA matter "if the part[ies] could not be defined as . . . victim[s] of domestic violence" under N.J.S.A. 2C:14-14.  It explained it would not have jurisdiction if the parties had a "child in common" under N.J.S.A. 2C:25-19(d) of the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act (PDVA), N.J.S.A. 2C:25-17 to -35.           The trial court then noted, relying on D.V. v. A.H. , 394 N.J. Super. 388 (Ch. Div. 2007), although plaintiff and defendant do not "biologically" have children in common, "they [do] have . . . step-children in common."  It explained, while "child in common" is not defined under the PDVA, plaintiff and defendant were in a "family-like setting[]."  It ultimately found step-children fell within the meaning of a "child in common" under N.J.S.A. 2C:25-19(d).  Therefore, the trial court concluded it had no jurisdiction over the VASPA matter, dismissed the claim, and vacated the TPO.           The court concluded the trial court improperly relied on D.V.  In distinguishing D.V. , it noted the plaintiff and the defendant in that case both had parental rights, even though the plaintiff was not a biological parent.  394 N.J. Super. at 390.  The facts here are not analogous.  Not only does defendant not have any parental rights, but he has also been barred from having any contact with the children for over five years.  The court observed this was far afield from the "judicially joined" parties involved in D.V.  Under the present circumstances, the court determined the parties do not have a "child in common" for the purposes of N.J.S.A. 2C:25-19(d), and plaintiff should have been permitted to proceed with his VASPA action. Close
  • ML, INC. VS. EDISON TOWNSHIP BOARD OF EDUCATION, ET AL. (L-3854-25 AND L-3941-25, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0179-25 Appellate Nov. 18, 2025 Summary A-0179-25      Presented on an emergent basis, this appeal and cross-appeal in a public bidding dispute arise from the Edison Township Board of Education's award of a public school construction contract to respondent Vanas Construction Co., Inc. ("Vanas"). Of the three bids submitted by the parties, the bid of cross-appellant Benard Associates, Inc. ("Benard") was the lowest ($14,885,000), the bid of appellant ML, Inc. ("ML") was the second lowest ($14,975,000), and Vanas's bid was the highest ($15,540,000).  The School Board deemed Vanas to be the "lowest responsible bidder" under N.J.S.A. 18:18A-4(a), concluding that its bid, unlike those of ML and Benard, did not suffer from any material defects.      ML and Bernard each filed suit in the Law Division to halt and overturn the award to Vanas. On the return date of the order to show cause, the Law Division judge denied plaintiffs' requests for a preliminary injunction and dismissed the case.  This court granted an emergent interim stay of the contract award, pending appeal.      The court affirms the Law Division judge's determination that the School Board reasonably rejected ML's bid as materially defective because of the staleness of the information—in what is known as DPMC Form 701 ("the DPMC form")—attesting to the status of work that ML's electrical subcontractor was slated to perform on other pending projects.  The DPMC form, which was developed by the New Jersey Department of Treasury, requires each bidder to provide current information about the status of its outstanding work and that of its designated subcontractors.  See N.J.A.C. 17:19-2.13 (specifying the required contents of the form).      The School Board reasonably concluded the lengthy gap of over five months between the date of the DPMC form in December 2024 and the bid opening date in June 2025 rendered ML's bid unresponsive.  In making that assessment, the School Board had the statutory authority as a local procurement agency to treat the DPMC form's untimeliness more stringently than the Treasury otherwise might have on a State contract. The court reconciles that conclusion with the history of the regulation relating to the form, and which notes Treasury's own practice of deferring a bidder's fulsome disclosure of its work backlog to the time between a bid opening and the bid award.   See 48 N.J.R. 1495(a) (proposed Aug. 1, 2016) and 48 N.J.R. 2830(a) (adopted Dec. 19, 2016).      The court also sustains the Law Division's decision to deny relief to Benard.  The School Board had a reasonable basis to reject that bid because of its non-compliance with the School Board's bid bond requirements.  Unlike Vanas, Benard's bid bond was dated over one month before the opening date of bid submissions and, notably, before a contract Addendum issued in the interim by the School Board had materially altered the project's scope of work and pricing.      The court accordingly modifies the Law Division's decision and converts it from a preliminary ruling to a final ruling that affirms the contract award to Vanas. Close
  • STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ANDREW K. ABOAGYE (23-03-0220, MORRIS COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0586-23 Appellate Nov. 19, 2025
  • TRACI WILLIS VS. THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF CAMDEN, ET AL. (L-1262-20, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1734-23 Appellate Nov. 19, 2025